Appeal No. 2006-1530 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/221,959
Claims 11-212 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pitfield.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by appellants and
the examiner concerning the issues before us on this appeal.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellants’ arguments
set forth in the brief, appellants have not persuaded us of
reversible error on the part of the examiner. Accordingly, we
will affirm the examiner’s rejection for substantially the
reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer. We add the
following for emphasis.
2 The examiner inadvertently omitted claim 21 from the statement of the rejection
at page 2 of the answer. See the paragraph bridging pages 8 and 9 of the answer.
However, that omission is harmless error because appellants (brief, pages 1 and 9)
recognize that the final rejection of claim 21 is at issue in this appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007